masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:94.13.3.78
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Liara T'Soni page. ' '. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 01:34, 4 December 2010 Liara Edits Please note that your edit to Liara's article are not constructive and you are removing valid and relevant information. Because you can actually do those things to Liara in the dialogue, they are both relevant and have a place in the article, no matter what you think. If the player has the option to "belittle", as you say, Liara's character, then it does have a place. Your edit summary: "removal of material added by a member with an obvious agenda in belittling Liara's character, and who quite ridiculously accuses her of "betrayal"" is not any justification for removing valid information as that is why your edits have been undone twice now. Again, since the player can choose to accuse Liara of betrayal, the information is both warranted, relevant, and deserves a place in the article. Remember that Mass Effect is an RPG, and the decisions you make may not be the same decisions that someone else makes. Some will choose to "belittle" Liara for what she did. Just because you don't, doesn't instantly mean that another option, which can also happen, doesn't mean that the other part gets cut. As to your summary, "added by a member with an obvious agenda in belittling Liara's character,". Again that is not the purpose it is in the article, it is there because Mass Effect is an RPG, and just because you do one thing, doesn't mean that someone does exactly the same. Also note that there is no official canon for Mass Effect so all decisions and dialogue need to be recorded because they are all relevant to the article. Someone else may accuse Liara of betrayal, and since you can, it not only is relevant, it deserves a place in the article. I actually like Liara as a character so my "obvious agenda" in keeping relevant information is not in me in any way, shape, or from trying to "belittle Liara's character". The information is something that can happen, and as such deserves a place in the article. As to "and who quite ridiculously accuses her of "betrayal", see my comments above about relevance and other people's actions. Do remember that we have to present information as both unbiased, and have all of the information present. How can you "belittle" Liara's character by having information in the article that the writers and designers put into the game. Clearly they thought that some people might want to accuse Liara of betrayal, so if you have an issue with it, take it up with BioWare since they are the ones who put it into the game '''in the first place'. Just because you don't like that option or don't perform it, doesn't mean that it should get removed as others may choose that dialogue option and "belittle" Liara and accuse her of betrayal. The information is both accurate and relevant to the article. Finally, you are getting close to edit war territory on this matter, which is a bannable offence and I'll please ask you to stop removing both valid and relevant information before further actions have to be taken. Thanks. Lancer1289 19:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :Yup. And you'll note that, contrary to your edit summary, the editor who added the info never themselves accuses Liara of betrayal. They merely point out that Commander Shepard can do so. Does that mean that the Commander has "an obvious agenda in belittling Liara"? SpartHawg948 20:51, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :I should clarify that I am in no way accusing you of possessing an agenda, but rather the person who originally added the information to the article. Upon studying said member's contributions, it becomes apparent that they are an embittered Ashley or Kaidan fan who resents the fact that Shepard is now able to reconcile the romance with Liara, and is attempting to undermine and demean her in the most contrived way possible. Do not be naive. One glance at their edits to the articles regarding Horizon and the Illusive Man make this quite clear. Additionally, the editor uses the phrase "selfish betrayal" as an objective fact, which is ridiculous. 15:29, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah I can't find one piece of evidence to support that. The information is neutral as given the dialogue, it isn't hard to come to that conclusion. I certainly did given what Liara says with my first thought being after hearing it being, "wow who's being selfish". It present the information as it appears and frankly I have no problems with it. So far you have yet to give one single valid reason for removal of valid and relevant information. The only reason you have so far given is that because you don't like the information, then it should go, which isn't how the system works. So answer Spart's question about the dialogue presented, which is what the information is based on. We are not being naive, we are presenting the information, all of it. If anyone is being naive here is it you because you were asked to not remove valid and relevant information and you did. ::Also since you have now removed it for the third time, you are now in edit war territory, which is a bannable offense So I will ask you again to please stop before further actions need to be taken. Lancer1289 18:42, December 5, 2010 (UTC) Um, if "selfish betrayal" is taken directly from the game's actual dialogue, I guess it could be written with quotation marks on the page so it doesn't look like "subjective terminology". --Kiadony 18:59, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :Personally I don't think it is that subjective when it’s presenting the information. However it seems that the user didn't want to listen to repeated warnings about removing valid and relevant content and is now banned for the prescribed time. If this behavior persists after the block, then you will be blocked again and this time for a longer period of time. Lancer1289 19:10, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Having to put quotation marks around apparently "subjective terminology" that actually comes from in-game sources is asinine. So much of that exists. What we really need is for embittered editors to not go on rants and rampages removing swathes of articles while asserting that the editors who added the content must themselves be embittered fans of another particular character. Honestly, I've never gotten where this factional obsession with characters comes from. It's like that stupid Edward vs Jacob Twilight nonsense. ::Now, to address the comment by the unregistered user: Of course I realize you weren't accusing ''me of possessing an agenda. I made this abundantly clear in my first comment, before you "clarified" for me. I was merely asking if, since the part you find so offensive comes straight from dialogue spoken by Commander Shepard, that therefor means that Commander Shepard is the one with the obvious agenda in belittling Liara? Because all the editor who added the info was doing was reporting what Shepard said. So if anyone had the agenda, it'd be the Commander. SpartHawg948 20:54, December 5, 2010 (UTC)